~ archived since 2018 ~

What now?

YOHAMI · 2014-04-19T05:08:26+00:00

Some people want to go to the past, but the past was also fucked. The present is fucked. Some people want the future to be fucked as well, as a payback for the...

YOHAMI

April 19, 2014

1 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	What now?
Author	YOHAMI
Upvotes	1
Comments	56
Date	April 19, 2014 5:08 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/23f0mc/what_now/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-now.285865 https://theredarchive.com/post/285865

Comments

[–][deleted] 12 points12 points12 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

For what will probably not be particularly lively PPD thread, your comment was a good read for my early morning Redditing.

I'd like to touch on this part a little more

(compared to blacks, women, other ethnic groups, and gays)

and just really draw attention to why the civil rights movements of the 60s and the feminist flavorings of the 70s took place. Not only were wages high/tuition low/opportunity abundant for young straight white men, it came at the expense of everybody else. So obviously there was going to be an inevitable backlash and a demand for fairness. And now there's resentment from today's young white men, as they can see how good young men in their positions used to have it, compared to the current situation, which is still far from perfect and in the process of trying to become fair for everyone.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

and just really draw attention to why the civil rights movements of the 60s and the feminist flavorings of the 70s took place. Not only were wages high/tuition low/opportunity abundant for young straight white men, it came at the expense of everybody else. So obviously there was going to be an inevitable backlash and a demand for fairness. And now there's resentment from today's young white men, as they can see how good young men in their positions used to have it, compared to the current situation, which is still far from perfect and in the process of trying to become fair for everyone.

Economics is not a zero sum game. Life was getting better for everyone, to include minorities and women in the 50s. Gays were not even considered a minority until recent times.

Prior to the civil rights legislation, minorities made large advances in most parts of the US. For instance, the military was desegregated in the late forties. Quality of life gradually increased for everybody. Most women choose to be what we called red pill women. I'd argue that what created modern feminism was the pill. It's what enabled women to control their sexuality and thus allowed for the sexual revolution.

The US was thrust abruptly into the role of center of the world economy. This, combined with the numerous economic advantages of becoming the world's reserve currency made the US rich. It was kind of the perfect storm for wealth. Nothing to do with riding on the backs if women and minorities.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Life was getting better for everyone, to include minorities and women in the 50s.

Do you have any specific examples?

Most women choose to be what we called red pill women.

That isn't true. There was no choice, first of all. Women were housewives because birth control didn't exist, they were expected to marry young (for both religious reasons and financial reasons, women often needed to be married to have certain legal powers, own property, ect), husbands expect sex, and someone has to take care of the inevitable baby. Also, the archtype of the perfect 50s housewife who happily spend their days cleaning in heels and done up like a pin-up model has been proven false. As a society that's the image that comes to mind when we about the 50s, but that's because it was used to heavily in advertising. It was a fantasy, and there sure seemed to be a push to make it happen, but the average American woman was not some perfect domestic goddess.

I'd argue that what created modern feminism was the pill. It's what enabled women to control their sexuality and thus allowed for the sexual revolution.

I agree. And consider this, if women were truly happy with that prospective set-up (be a RPW and pop out babies and clean the kitchen while smiling sweetly) why was there such a demand for the pill? Why didn't more women choose to live traditionally?

[–]robestaRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Life was getting better for everyone, to include minorities and women in the 50s. Do you have any specific examples?

I googled it and no. No charts for b minorities. For minorities, I'm basing that on what Thomas Sowell, a black economist who grew up in that time period said in a book of his I read. He studied the trends pretty extensively and probably has better evidence.

Women increased in college attendance and as the net worth and income of men increased, married women would necessarily. experience the same bump in quality of life.

My assertion doesn't seem that crazy. Saying that white men benefited on the backs of women and minorities seems like it would call for evidence and citations.

Most women choose to be what we called red pill women. That isn't true. There was no choice, first of all. Women were housewives because birth control didn't exist

But there was a choice. Sluts were outliers then while red pill women are outliers now. Incentives have consequences. If you can get birth control, abortions, and child support, there is basically no cost to the individual woman to be a slut. Back then there was a high cost, both economically and in society. Women just made the logical choice in both time periods.

why was there such a demand for the pill? Why didn't more women choose to live traditionally?

Because women wanted control of their reproductive capabilities and thus accumulate power. When men get vasogel, the balance if power is going to shift back to men and any woman who wants to have a baby will have to win over a man, not a man winning over a woman for sex as it is today.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]robesta1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Because women wanted control of their reproductive capabilities and thus accumulate power. When men get vasogel, the balance if power is going to shift back to men and any woman who wants to have a baby will have to win over a man, not a man winning over a woman for sex as it is today.

That's a very negative way to view the world. I don't take birth control to hold power over men, I take it because I don't want to get pregnant, as the whole process is a giant pain in the ass and I don't want kids at this point in my life, possibly ever. I seriously doubt there's going to be some kind of drastic power shift as male birth control becomes more of a thing.

Going back to the 50s though, when non-white individuals weren't allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, go to the good schools, work respectable non-manual labor jobs, basically make any effort towards ensuring that their children would have it better than they did, and white individuals were... my original point is the reason young white men were able to have high wages at easy jobs and a cheap education is because the pool of money is bigger when there are less people drawing from it. When women and non-whites are excluded, there's more resources available for the white men. When you throw everyone in the mix, of course there less work and money to go around. I didn't actually use the phrase "on the backs of women and minorities", I said that young white men had historically unprecedentedly fantastic life-building opportunities in the 50s at the expense of everyone else, who weren't allowed those same opportunities. Which is true.

Mostly I want to emphasize though is that many "RP" women of the 50s were not happy to be in their position. Have you ever heard of "Mother's little helper"? Ask any women in your life who were around in the 50s about it. Mother's little helper was what women at the time called Speed and Valium, which they consumed in an effort to uphold the impossible standard of the 50s housewife that advertising at the time demanded they be. There's also a reason you'll see women drinking heavily as they vacuum in their heels in those ads. It was not a utopia. It was also generally assumed that women were painfully incompetent, that their opinions and desires were automatically less important than those of men, that they needed their hands held at all times. I can't imagine having to put up with that on a daily basis, and it's still pretty bad these days with some people.

I have to ask, do you think things were better in the 50s? For women? For anyone other than young white men?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Nope. It's all over the Supreme Court. Some industries don't want to pay for female birth control, even though they'll pay for Viagra and penis pumps.

Hypocrisy. Hardly a battle won. Haven't you been reading the news?

Also, OF COURSE you don't like condoms. But MRs and RPs are obsessed with women stealing sperm and getting pregnant (it's kind of weird). So the answer seems obvious to me.

Also, feminists against male birth control (or any birth control)? Source please. Sounds like an MR myth.

Here's a well know mag with a feminist slant. No opposition there.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/stop_our_sperm_please/

And here's jezebel. Not opposed.

http://jezebel.com/5918427/some-dudes-are-obsessed-with-the-idea-of-male-contraception

And the hairpin. Feminists enthusiastically for, with a bonus dig at RP/MR craziness.

http://thehairpin.com/2012/04/the-agonizing-ecstasies-of-male-contraception

Now think about it logically, from a feminist perspective, don't you think feminists would be all for equalizing the burden of pregnancy prevention?

Feminists Against male contraception? That makes no sense.

[–]robestaRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Really? Condescending and rude? Telling you to source your claim and read something besides that cesspit of RP and MR sub reddits is insulting you? (Because you had no clue about the birth control debate. None) Is that rude and condescending?

And I thought RPs said it is women who get overly emotional in debates.

Meanwhile, you're boxed into a corner. Again.

So you revert to insults. It makes you feel better about yourself to apply some RP stereotype about women because, per usual, you've got nothing.

You'd think that the RPs here would realize they don't know what they're talking about and open a book for chrissake.

But they like to stew in their ignorance.

Don't you want to know what you're talking about? I just don't understand it. How can people enjoy debating when they have no clue as to what they're talking about?

It just boggles the mind. I mean, it's not going to hurt to actually learn about feminism from a primary source.

Or anything really. Maybe my standards are just too high as to what to expect from people. Not everyone likes to learn.

Also, once you actually get off your phone and source it, I'd bet money it's a lousy source, representative of nothing.

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robesta2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's a very negative way to view the world. I don't take birth control to hold power over men, I take it because I don't want to get pregnant, as the whole process is a giant pain in the ass and I don't want kids at this point in my life, possibly ever. I seriously doubt there's going to be some kind of drastic power shift as male birth control becomes more of a thing.

You don't represent all women. Using it or not, you do have reproductive power over any man that chooses to sleep with you tho unless he wears condoms or gets a vasectomy. There will be a power shift with vasogel. Whether it will be minor or major is the question.

Going back to the 50s though, when non-white individuals weren't allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, go to the good schools, work respectable non-manual labor jobs, basically make any effort towards ensuring that their children would have it better than they did, and white individuals were..

This is a much more localized issue than you are giving credit. Yes, as a whole black people had less opportunities, but everywhere was not Alabama. Jim Crow was not nationwide and society was in the process of changing prior to civil rights legislation. Thomas Sowell, who I previously mentioned was an economics professor at Columbia in the 50s. I'm not denying that there were inequalities. I'm just saying things weren't as simple as we're making them out to be.

Mostly I want to emphasize though is that many "RP" women of the 50s were not happy to be in their position. Have you ever heard of "Mother's little helper"? Ask any women in your life who were around in the 50s about it.

Agreed. Some women weren't happy then and some women aren't happy now.

I have to ask, do you think things were better in the 50s? For women? For anyone other than young white men?

I think a lot of women that were thrust into the corporate world would be happier in a more traditional role. I like that women have options, but I don't like that there looked down upon if they exercise the traditional option.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]robestaRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JellyBr0nutTake from RP what you need and keep your options open3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GooseNewbergColourless0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link